The Bay State Monthly — Volume 2, No. 5, February, 1885Various
History
The Bay State Monthly — Volume 2, No. 5, February, 1885
Various
Massachusetts -- Periodicals; New England -- Periodicals
As before intimated parents are sometimes guilty of this offence, and
thus place upon a child a stigma that will follow it through life. A
little care on their part will remedy the evil, to that extent, and they
surely should be willing to do their share in the work. Teachers and
those who have the charge of the young are sometimes thoughtless enough
to commit the same fault. Should it not be crime? For they have no right
to be thus inconsiderate, when a little restraint upon their part will
prevent the wrong as far as they are concerned. With these two
influences setting in the right direction, added to that of the thinking
community, a current may very likely be formed that shall obliterate
wholly the custom and deliver us from its attendant difficulties.
Another practice now quite common, and one which bids fair to create
much confusion, is that which permits the wife to take the Christian
name of her husband: for instance, Mrs. Mary, wife of John Smith, signs
her name Mrs. John Smith, a name which has no legal existence, which she
is entitled to use only by courtesy, and which should be allowed in
none but necessary cases to distinguish her from some other bearing the
same name, or to address her when her own Christian name is not known.
Mrs. is but a general title to designate the class of persons to which
she belongs, and not a name, any more than Mr. or Esq. Who ever knew a
man to sign his name Mr. so and so, or so and so, Esq.?
To show the absurdity and impropriety of this misuse of the name it will
be needful to mention but a single illustration. Suppose a note or check
is made payable to Mrs. John Smith. Mrs. being only a title, and no part
of the name, the endorsement would be plain John Smith, and nobody, not
even his wife, has any right to forge his signature. An instrument thus
drawn is a mistake, since no one can be authorized to execute it.
The trouble to the genealogist and historian is of a somewhat different
nature, since he merely desires to identify the individual and cares
nothing about the money value of the document. Much the safer and better
way is for the wife always to sign and use her proper name and to add,
if she thinks it necessary to be more explicit, "wife of," using her
husband's name. By doing this a vast deal of perplexity would be
avoided, and sometimes a serious legal difficulty.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account